A Special Meeting of the Richland 2 School Board has been called for Monday, May 20, 2019 at 5:00PM.
The entire meeting is scheduled as open.
From 5:00-5:30PM there is a public input session on the budget for 2019-2020.
ATTENTION: MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC
Leave your kids at school or at their after-school function and attend this meeting.
Leave work early so you can be there.
Tell your kids that there are left-overs in the refrigerator and that they are on their own for dinner.
Tell them not to put metal in the microwave.
Feed the dog early.
At 6:30PM the Board is set to approve the 2019-2020 Budget and will vote on three more of those "most important" Board Policies that must have their valuable attention.
There is no Public Participation segment in the Special Meeting.
Will this public meeting, from 5:00PM to the time of adjournment, be recorded and posted on YouTube?
Where is the video of the April 23, 2019 Special Meeting? On May 8 I inquired when it would be posted, and the responder said she would check on it.
Friday, May 17, 2019
Did an ethics violation occur on May 14?
While Amelia McKie was lavishing praise on Supt. Davis in her closing comments at the May 14, 2019 Board meeting, she threw in a statement that, to me, appeared to be unethical.
I think she thanked every living soul in Richland County, except me, as she said (at 3:53:38):
"I thank you all who are continuing to focus on policies that affect our district and, by doing so,
honoring the 26,000-plus voters who sent me here for my fifth year of service."
This is a political statement and cannot be allowed at a meeting of a public body.
I intend to find out whether this is a violation of South Carolina Ethics laws.
School District employees do not do their jobs to "honor" those who voted for McKie. They do their jobs because they like the work and get paid to do it. It has absolutely nothing to do with the voters!
I think she thanked every living soul in Richland County, except me, as she said (at 3:53:38):
"I thank you all who are continuing to focus on policies that affect our district and, by doing so,
honoring the 26,000-plus voters who sent me here for my fifth year of service."
This is a political statement and cannot be allowed at a meeting of a public body.
I intend to find out whether this is a violation of South Carolina Ethics laws.
School District employees do not do their jobs to "honor" those who voted for McKie. They do their jobs because they like the work and get paid to do it. It has absolutely nothing to do with the voters!
"Wiil of the Board" - what is it?
The phrase "will of the board" is starting to creep into use at Richland 2 School Board meetings.
The person acting as Chair throws the words out and then never proceeds to learn what the Will of the board really is. This happened on May 14.
There is only one way for the board to know what the "will of the board" is and that is to have a vote. To have a vote, a board member is going to have to make a Motion. And then somebody will have to second it. (Did you watch how long it took on May 14 to get a motion just to re-convene in public session at 6:30PM?)
And then the vote will decide what the "will of the board" is. Right now the person acting as Board Chair declares what the will of the board is. And that is wrong!
But the Board Chair might not allow such a motion or vote, because it's not on the Agenda.
Stalemate!
At the end of the meeting Mrs. Agostini asked for two items to be added to the agenda for the May 28th meeting: 1. a cell phone tower report and 2. having the bond attorney attorney attend to answer questions about the addenda to the bond documents (that she refused to sign).
Fast-forward to (3:34:55) in the District's video on YouTube for the May 14, 2019 meeting {Yes! That's 3 hours 34 minutes (so far)) for the discussion of items for the May 28th Agenda. Notice during Supt. Davis' prefacing remarks that McKie is fanning herself. It wasn't hot in the board room. Why is she hot?
McKie was asleep at the switch and not prepared to proceed with the meeting after Supt. Davis finished with his boilerplate comments for the next meeting's agenda. Had McKie been attentive, she would have scrolled forward on her tablet as he spoke and proceeded without delay to ask for board suggestions.
Proceeding with a Motion without first getting the motion complete was an error. Did McKie have an idea what Mrs. Agostini wanted to propose? Mr. Shadd then made a motion to accept the agenda as proposed by the superintendent. While he was making the motion, which included removal of an item, Davis and Elkins-Johnson were engaged in a side conversation.
Side conversations in public meetings ARE NOT PERMITTED, because the public cannot hear what is said. It's not just disrespectful, it would be contrary, I suspect, to Board Policy, ethics and state law. Whatever is said by a public official at a public meeting must be audible to the public!
Caution-Parker seconded Shadd's Motion. Elkins-Johnson didn't hear it. How will she vote?
At (3:38:05) Mrs. Agostini was recognized. She asked for a cell phone tower update and she asked for the bond attorney to attend to discuss the recommended changes by the Superintendent to the litigation certificate that the board was not briefed on as it pertains to the Board Chair's ethics violations and fines. McKie blew right past Mrs. Agostini's requests and proceeded to the vote.
At (3:40:12), during Board & Superintendent Comments, Mrs. Agostini commented that the Board is talking the talk, but she asked if it is walking the walk. She referred to the Amelia McKie's having missed the deadline for filing the required Campaign Disclosure Report with the Ethics Commission, after McKie promised in January it wouldn't happen again.
The other board members passed on making comments. They knew how long they had been there and how long the audience had sat there. Then the superintendent and McKie, instead of quickly closing the meeting, droned on for another 12 minutes! Regarding graduations Supt. Davis could have just said, "It's late. See the schedule online." And McKie should have just adjourned the meeting.
Instead, McKie (3:48:16) spewed on for six minutes and said she "wouldn't dignify certain accusations". In other words, she wouldn't acknowledge the truth! Watch her suck up to the superintendent, as she says that Supt. Davis praised all his staff at the Teacher Appreciation Dinner "except himself".
Does this even make sense?
Then McKie praised herself extensively and thanked the 26,000 voters who sent her for her fifth term. (See separate article about this!)
McKie said the staff takes time on their own to come to board meetings and make presentations. Whom does she think she is kidding? When the Superintendent tells a department head that he's up at the next meeting, there is no "voluntary" involved.
While McKie was droning away, Elkins-Johnson and Davis had another side conversation.
Listen to the drivel that came out of McKie's mouth at the end of the meeting. It's a wonder someone didn't stand up and shout, "AMELIA, SHUT UP."
McKie must have learned a new word on her vocabulary list last week - the word, "Phenomenal." She used it at least 12 times in her closing comments.
The meeting adjourned at 3:54:26. Inexcusable!
The person acting as Chair throws the words out and then never proceeds to learn what the Will of the board really is. This happened on May 14.
There is only one way for the board to know what the "will of the board" is and that is to have a vote. To have a vote, a board member is going to have to make a Motion. And then somebody will have to second it. (Did you watch how long it took on May 14 to get a motion just to re-convene in public session at 6:30PM?)
And then the vote will decide what the "will of the board" is. Right now the person acting as Board Chair declares what the will of the board is. And that is wrong!
But the Board Chair might not allow such a motion or vote, because it's not on the Agenda.
Stalemate!
At the end of the meeting Mrs. Agostini asked for two items to be added to the agenda for the May 28th meeting: 1. a cell phone tower report and 2. having the bond attorney attorney attend to answer questions about the addenda to the bond documents (that she refused to sign).
Fast-forward to (3:34:55) in the District's video on YouTube for the May 14, 2019 meeting {Yes! That's 3 hours 34 minutes (so far)) for the discussion of items for the May 28th Agenda. Notice during Supt. Davis' prefacing remarks that McKie is fanning herself. It wasn't hot in the board room. Why is she hot?
McKie was asleep at the switch and not prepared to proceed with the meeting after Supt. Davis finished with his boilerplate comments for the next meeting's agenda. Had McKie been attentive, she would have scrolled forward on her tablet as he spoke and proceeded without delay to ask for board suggestions.
Proceeding with a Motion without first getting the motion complete was an error. Did McKie have an idea what Mrs. Agostini wanted to propose? Mr. Shadd then made a motion to accept the agenda as proposed by the superintendent. While he was making the motion, which included removal of an item, Davis and Elkins-Johnson were engaged in a side conversation.
Side conversations in public meetings ARE NOT PERMITTED, because the public cannot hear what is said. It's not just disrespectful, it would be contrary, I suspect, to Board Policy, ethics and state law. Whatever is said by a public official at a public meeting must be audible to the public!
Caution-Parker seconded Shadd's Motion. Elkins-Johnson didn't hear it. How will she vote?
At (3:38:05) Mrs. Agostini was recognized. She asked for a cell phone tower update and she asked for the bond attorney to attend to discuss the recommended changes by the Superintendent to the litigation certificate that the board was not briefed on as it pertains to the Board Chair's ethics violations and fines. McKie blew right past Mrs. Agostini's requests and proceeded to the vote.
At (3:40:12), during Board & Superintendent Comments, Mrs. Agostini commented that the Board is talking the talk, but she asked if it is walking the walk. She referred to the Amelia McKie's having missed the deadline for filing the required Campaign Disclosure Report with the Ethics Commission, after McKie promised in January it wouldn't happen again.
The other board members passed on making comments. They knew how long they had been there and how long the audience had sat there. Then the superintendent and McKie, instead of quickly closing the meeting, droned on for another 12 minutes! Regarding graduations Supt. Davis could have just said, "It's late. See the schedule online." And McKie should have just adjourned the meeting.
Instead, McKie (3:48:16) spewed on for six minutes and said she "wouldn't dignify certain accusations". In other words, she wouldn't acknowledge the truth! Watch her suck up to the superintendent, as she says that Supt. Davis praised all his staff at the Teacher Appreciation Dinner "except himself".
Does this even make sense?
Then McKie praised herself extensively and thanked the 26,000 voters who sent her for her fifth term. (See separate article about this!)
McKie said the staff takes time on their own to come to board meetings and make presentations. Whom does she think she is kidding? When the Superintendent tells a department head that he's up at the next meeting, there is no "voluntary" involved.
While McKie was droning away, Elkins-Johnson and Davis had another side conversation.
Listen to the drivel that came out of McKie's mouth at the end of the meeting. It's a wonder someone didn't stand up and shout, "AMELIA, SHUT UP."
McKie must have learned a new word on her vocabulary list last week - the word, "Phenomenal." She used it at least 12 times in her closing comments.
The meeting adjourned at 3:54:26. Inexcusable!
Pledge of Allegiance
When is the last time you recited the Pledge of Allegiance?
Did you just mouth the words? Did you speak each word clearly and with feeling? Did you face the U.S. Flag? Did you place your hand over your heart?
This video is of a 1969 episode of The Red Skelton Show.
"Red" lived from 1913 until 1997 - 84 years. Think of the changes he saw during his lifetime.
Whenever you say the Pledge, remember Red Skelton's words. Have your kids watch this with you.
Thursday, May 16, 2019
Ever a defense?
Is there ever a defense for breaking the law?
Since December I've spent a lot of time thinking about the embarrassing situation at the Richland 2 School District.
The Board Chair owes over $51,000 in fines and penalties to the S.C. Ethics Commission.
Two people are illegally in office on the Board.
Now there is a controversy over Officers' signatures on the District's $468,000,000 bond documents.
Not small potatoes.
I was reminded this week of the ticket I got in Woodstock, Ill. in 2007. I was driving a 1999 VW New Beetle and had had recurring problems with headlights burning out often. One cold night, as I started my car and turned on the lights, I noticed the left headlight was out. I was 15 miles from home. What could I do? Just drive home and get it fixed in the morning. I almost made it!
In the block of my residence and just before I could turn into my driveway, a Woodstock cop pulled me over. He walked up and asked if I knew the headlight was out. When I explained and told him that I already had an appointment to have it replaced at 8:00AM the next day, he said he'd write me a Warning. No problem.
He returned to the warmth of his patrol car to write up the Warning, and a second patrol car showed up. I could see the cops talking. Then Cop #1 came back to my window and said, "I'm going to give you a ticket." When I asked what had just happened, all he would do is repeat his words.
I knew the ticket was a non-moving violation with a $75.00 fine, but I prepared to fight it. I planned to subpoena all the documents, the two officers, their supervisor, their department and personal cell phone records, transcripts and recordings of the police radio transmissions about the stop, the Records Dept. sergeant, the training officer, statistics for number of tickets vs. warnings for burned-out headlights, etc., etc. I planned on a real dog-and-pony show in Traffic Court.
I could pay the $75.00 before the day of court.
If I went to court and won, there would be no fine.
If I went to court and lost, I'd have to pay the $75.00 plus $200.00 in court fines and fees.
And then I thought about the likely last words and question by the judge . "Nice job, Mr. Philpott. Now tell me, was the headlight out?"
I paid the $75.00.
Two and one-half years later Cop #1, who was no longer with the department, called me. He thanked me for never having asked again what had happened when Cop #2 showed up. He told me that Cop #2 had reminded him of an order at the P.D. that, if I ever got stopped for anything, I was to get a ticket, not a warning.
It seems I had sent too many emails to the P.D. complaining about speeding cops and cops running Stop signs. I had also asked their help in stopping many dangerous drivers, who were later convicted in Traffic Court.
Since December I've spent a lot of time thinking about the embarrassing situation at the Richland 2 School District.
The Board Chair owes over $51,000 in fines and penalties to the S.C. Ethics Commission.
Two people are illegally in office on the Board.
Now there is a controversy over Officers' signatures on the District's $468,000,000 bond documents.
Not small potatoes.
I was reminded this week of the ticket I got in Woodstock, Ill. in 2007. I was driving a 1999 VW New Beetle and had had recurring problems with headlights burning out often. One cold night, as I started my car and turned on the lights, I noticed the left headlight was out. I was 15 miles from home. What could I do? Just drive home and get it fixed in the morning. I almost made it!
In the block of my residence and just before I could turn into my driveway, a Woodstock cop pulled me over. He walked up and asked if I knew the headlight was out. When I explained and told him that I already had an appointment to have it replaced at 8:00AM the next day, he said he'd write me a Warning. No problem.
He returned to the warmth of his patrol car to write up the Warning, and a second patrol car showed up. I could see the cops talking. Then Cop #1 came back to my window and said, "I'm going to give you a ticket." When I asked what had just happened, all he would do is repeat his words.
I knew the ticket was a non-moving violation with a $75.00 fine, but I prepared to fight it. I planned to subpoena all the documents, the two officers, their supervisor, their department and personal cell phone records, transcripts and recordings of the police radio transmissions about the stop, the Records Dept. sergeant, the training officer, statistics for number of tickets vs. warnings for burned-out headlights, etc., etc. I planned on a real dog-and-pony show in Traffic Court.
I could pay the $75.00 before the day of court.
If I went to court and won, there would be no fine.
If I went to court and lost, I'd have to pay the $75.00 plus $200.00 in court fines and fees.
And then I thought about the likely last words and question by the judge . "Nice job, Mr. Philpott. Now tell me, was the headlight out?"
I paid the $75.00.
Two and one-half years later Cop #1, who was no longer with the department, called me. He thanked me for never having asked again what had happened when Cop #2 showed up. He told me that Cop #2 had reminded him of an order at the P.D. that, if I ever got stopped for anything, I was to get a ticket, not a warning.
It seems I had sent too many emails to the P.D. complaining about speeding cops and cops running Stop signs. I had also asked their help in stopping many dangerous drivers, who were later convicted in Traffic Court.
5/14/19 Board Meeting - 4 HOURS
Did the Richland 2 School Board set a record on Tuesday, May 14? The meeting ran 3 hours 54 minutes, and that's in addition to the 30-minute budget input time and the 60-minute executive session.
A clue to the length of the meeting shows up right at the beginning of the recorded video on YouTube. Mrs. McKie rambled on and on while introducing Keith Price, who was to give the Inspiration Moment. As an Assistant Principal he is obligated to attend board meetings. She should have just introduced him and let him proceed.
The Board fails to control the length of the Inspiration Moment. It should be brief. It should be a "moment"; to me, that's a minute or two. Mr. Price is a good reader. His six-minute, three-page "Inspirational Moment" would have better as a two-minute, one-page comment.
McKie started to say "coming off of the May 1st day of protest", but she corrected herself to refer to Teacher Appreciation Week.
At (23:30) be sure to watch the segment with Principal Bobby Cunningham of the W.R. Rogers Center. He is an excellent speaker and he covered the information about his school in an interesting and rapid manner.
McKie must be running for office somewhere. Her effusive thanks to Mr. Cunningham, while slipping in a few toots on her own horn, were far too long and too gushy. There was something different about McKie Tuesday evening - some rambling, stumbling with wording and lack of cohesive statements that hadn't been obvious at earlier meetings this year. And then she burst into applause for Mr. Cunningham, which was unique to Board meetings. Watch her expression, as she led the applause.
At (34:45), the beginning of the public participation segment, Mrs. Agostini asked to make some remarks. McKie postponed Mrs. Agostini and said she had a couple of comments. Then McKie read the Rules of the Road. Man! I expected her to say, "Did you get all that, Gus?"
If you listen carefully to her words, you'll know why you never hear from any staffer after you make comments during the public participation segment. The Board never discusses public comments or, as a Board (decision), directs the Superintendent to assign someone to respond.
In other words, if you are lucky enough to say something pleasing to McKie, you might get your three minutes. If not, she'll gavel you in submission, which Ms. Holmes had asked her to do earlier this year. If you attended any Board meetings last year, before McKie took the top perch on the roost, they were run in a friendly, professional, competent manner, and the public didn't get beaten up.
McKie could have just said, "If you ain't got somethin' nice to say, don't even think about standing up to say anything."
And then McKie totally blew off Mrs. Agostini and introduced the first speaker for the public comment period. TALK ABOUT A SNUB!
Mrs. Agostini addressed inconsistencies occurring regarding public participation and described changes in the form which the public must sign in order to speak. She referred to a March 12th change in the sign-up sheet's wording, after she received complaints about changes in speaker order. McKie had assumed control over the order of speakers.
Mrs. Agostini continued. On February 12 a speaker was denied speaking time, because she had not filled out the forms in time. Agostini mentioned that, under the previous Board Chair, any one was welcome to speak, whether he had signed up or not. McKie said she would strictly adhere to Board Policy and wanted to be "as ethical and policy-abiding" as possible. Then, on March 26, McKie did not act as ethically and policy-abiding as possible, and she allowed a speaker who had not complied with her rules to speak. And she cut off a speaker (me) when a second topic was mentioned.
Again watch McKie's expression of conceit and disrespect toward Mrs. Agostini. Her smirks and childish behavior are completely out-of-place for the position of a Board Chair.
Then McKie accused people of using her "graceness (graciousness?) and latitude for personal gain and for insult"/ Well, Lawdy Lawd!!! To whom could she be referring? What does she really mean?
If McKie is going to prohibit personal attack, of which there haven't been any, she should refrain from attacking a member of the public. Remarks about failures of public officials are not personal attacks!
Then listen carefully to McKie's snarky "thanks" to Mrs. Agostini for bringing up her remarks. And watch her expression.
At (41:14) the first speaker, James Mobley, was introduced and McKie welcomed him with "we'd love to hear from you." WHOA, NELLIE! What's that about?
I am curious whether the Board has lost confidence in Amelia McKie.
The board's effort to create a Board Policy that would have enabled them to remove an Officer (such as the Chair) failed earlier this year. Actually, it passed, and the Board should act to correct that. Why did it really pass?
The vote on that proposed Board Policy was 3-4. Three for, four against. It failed. However, Mrs. McKie and Ms. Holmes are illegally on the Board. Without their votes the Policy would have passed 3-2. Counting the same three as For but leaving only two Against. There have been other votes that were declared with the wrong outcome.
The Board will eventually be held accountable for these errors.
A clue to the length of the meeting shows up right at the beginning of the recorded video on YouTube. Mrs. McKie rambled on and on while introducing Keith Price, who was to give the Inspiration Moment. As an Assistant Principal he is obligated to attend board meetings. She should have just introduced him and let him proceed.
The Board fails to control the length of the Inspiration Moment. It should be brief. It should be a "moment"; to me, that's a minute or two. Mr. Price is a good reader. His six-minute, three-page "Inspirational Moment" would have better as a two-minute, one-page comment.
McKie started to say "coming off of the May 1st day of protest", but she corrected herself to refer to Teacher Appreciation Week.
At (23:30) be sure to watch the segment with Principal Bobby Cunningham of the W.R. Rogers Center. He is an excellent speaker and he covered the information about his school in an interesting and rapid manner.
McKie must be running for office somewhere. Her effusive thanks to Mr. Cunningham, while slipping in a few toots on her own horn, were far too long and too gushy. There was something different about McKie Tuesday evening - some rambling, stumbling with wording and lack of cohesive statements that hadn't been obvious at earlier meetings this year. And then she burst into applause for Mr. Cunningham, which was unique to Board meetings. Watch her expression, as she led the applause.
At (34:45), the beginning of the public participation segment, Mrs. Agostini asked to make some remarks. McKie postponed Mrs. Agostini and said she had a couple of comments. Then McKie read the Rules of the Road. Man! I expected her to say, "Did you get all that, Gus?"
If you listen carefully to her words, you'll know why you never hear from any staffer after you make comments during the public participation segment. The Board never discusses public comments or, as a Board (decision), directs the Superintendent to assign someone to respond.
In other words, if you are lucky enough to say something pleasing to McKie, you might get your three minutes. If not, she'll gavel you in submission, which Ms. Holmes had asked her to do earlier this year. If you attended any Board meetings last year, before McKie took the top perch on the roost, they were run in a friendly, professional, competent manner, and the public didn't get beaten up.
McKie could have just said, "If you ain't got somethin' nice to say, don't even think about standing up to say anything."
And then McKie totally blew off Mrs. Agostini and introduced the first speaker for the public comment period. TALK ABOUT A SNUB!
Mrs. Agostini addressed inconsistencies occurring regarding public participation and described changes in the form which the public must sign in order to speak. She referred to a March 12th change in the sign-up sheet's wording, after she received complaints about changes in speaker order. McKie had assumed control over the order of speakers.
Mrs. Agostini continued. On February 12 a speaker was denied speaking time, because she had not filled out the forms in time. Agostini mentioned that, under the previous Board Chair, any one was welcome to speak, whether he had signed up or not. McKie said she would strictly adhere to Board Policy and wanted to be "as ethical and policy-abiding" as possible. Then, on March 26, McKie did not act as ethically and policy-abiding as possible, and she allowed a speaker who had not complied with her rules to speak. And she cut off a speaker (me) when a second topic was mentioned.
Again watch McKie's expression of conceit and disrespect toward Mrs. Agostini. Her smirks and childish behavior are completely out-of-place for the position of a Board Chair.
Then McKie accused people of using her "graceness (graciousness?) and latitude for personal gain and for insult"/ Well, Lawdy Lawd!!! To whom could she be referring? What does she really mean?
If McKie is going to prohibit personal attack, of which there haven't been any, she should refrain from attacking a member of the public. Remarks about failures of public officials are not personal attacks!
Then listen carefully to McKie's snarky "thanks" to Mrs. Agostini for bringing up her remarks. And watch her expression.
At (41:14) the first speaker, James Mobley, was introduced and McKie welcomed him with "we'd love to hear from you." WHOA, NELLIE! What's that about?
I am curious whether the Board has lost confidence in Amelia McKie.
The board's effort to create a Board Policy that would have enabled them to remove an Officer (such as the Chair) failed earlier this year. Actually, it passed, and the Board should act to correct that. Why did it really pass?
The vote on that proposed Board Policy was 3-4. Three for, four against. It failed. However, Mrs. McKie and Ms. Holmes are illegally on the Board. Without their votes the Policy would have passed 3-2. Counting the same three as For but leaving only two Against. There have been other votes that were declared with the wrong outcome.
The Board will eventually be held accountable for these errors.
Budget Input Session 2
On May 14 the Richland 2 School Board held a second Budget Input session. It was scheduled for 30 minutes at 5:00PM, before the regular one-hour Executive Session.
The video-recording of the May 14, 2019 Board meeting has been posted to YouTube. The recording begins at 5:30PM with an announcement that the ½-hour session for the budget input had concluded. Where is the recording of what actually happened during that 30-minute public School Board meeting???
Did anyone show up?
If they did, their words to the Board are lost forever. That public meeting should have been recorded and included in the YouTube video. Perhaps it would have just shown 30 minutes of seven people staring at their fingernails or shuffling papers.
So, how many members of the public showed up and what did they say?
If no one showed up or only one or two, the question must be asked, What did the District do to notify parents of 27,000 students, voters, taxpayers and community members of that valuable time for putting their 2¢ in for the Board's consideration was available?
If there was little or no announcement to the public of the budget-input session, is it any wonder that no one showed up? Only one woman showed up at the last budget-input session.
Scheduling it at 5:00PM assures a low turn-out of the public. End-of-day commutes, after-school shuttling of children, dinner-time -- all interfere with getting to a 5:00PM public comment session.
Why didn't the Board schedule it for the beginning of the 6:30PM public session or place it on the agenda?
My guess is that a survey of the public, asking them what they think "budget input" is for, would have them shaking their heads.
Perhaps one of the Board members will enlighten the public at the May 28th Board meeting.
The video-recording of the May 14, 2019 Board meeting has been posted to YouTube. The recording begins at 5:30PM with an announcement that the ½-hour session for the budget input had concluded. Where is the recording of what actually happened during that 30-minute public School Board meeting???
Did anyone show up?
If they did, their words to the Board are lost forever. That public meeting should have been recorded and included in the YouTube video. Perhaps it would have just shown 30 minutes of seven people staring at their fingernails or shuffling papers.
So, how many members of the public showed up and what did they say?
If no one showed up or only one or two, the question must be asked, What did the District do to notify parents of 27,000 students, voters, taxpayers and community members of that valuable time for putting their 2¢ in for the Board's consideration was available?
If there was little or no announcement to the public of the budget-input session, is it any wonder that no one showed up? Only one woman showed up at the last budget-input session.
Scheduling it at 5:00PM assures a low turn-out of the public. End-of-day commutes, after-school shuttling of children, dinner-time -- all interfere with getting to a 5:00PM public comment session.
Why didn't the Board schedule it for the beginning of the 6:30PM public session or place it on the agenda?
My guess is that a survey of the public, asking them what they think "budget input" is for, would have them shaking their heads.
Perhaps one of the Board members will enlighten the public at the May 28th Board meeting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)